SQLServerCentral.com / Editorials / SQLServerCentral.com / Slicing and Dicing / Latest PostsInstantForum.NET v99.99.99SQLServerCentral.comhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/notifications@sqlservercentral.comFri, 09 Dec 2016 22:57:57 GMT20RE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspxThe TV situation is mooted by the fact that delivery of content is heading (kicking and screaming) towards individual content purchases. I gave up on cable TV when I realized the handful of shows I did watch could be purchased through iTunes.This content is streamed on demand, without commercials. The aggregate cost for a years worth of shows was less than two months of the cable subscription. Meanwhile, I have replaced my "random TV watching time" with random online video watching through sources such as YouTube.I don't miss the traditional cable box, the traditional format for programming and have picked up a few hours a week of productive time to boot. I don't see bundling surviving unless it is made *cheaper* to get the content you want bundled than in this fashion.Thu, 19 Dec 2013 15:30:09 GMTjlopez 22728RE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspxBundling in consumer products like music and TV does not make sense to me because it amounts to paying for incompetence (stuff nobody wants or very few buyers want) by making the competent more expensive (to subsidize the less desirable products). This may actually hurt the good products, because they now are more expensive than they could have been.As for discovering new interests/music/TV because of bundles, that is not something you should be forced to pay for via a bundle. There are always avenues like Pandora and its variations, word-of-mouth and user reviews to spread the word about something good.Wed, 18 Dec 2013 09:33:03 GMThakim.aliRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspxIn the old days when bandwidth for analog channels was fixed, bundling made sense. But with digital channels and improvements in bandwidth management, billing, monitoring, and other advances in pay-per-view, it gets harder to justify bundling.Mon, 05 Oct 2009 09:04:43 GMTsjsubscribeRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspxI'm not sure we pay too much. There is some competition, and there's certainly demand. I wonder how things would work if we could al la carte things. I'll tell you from owning my own business that we'd offer much less if we had to concentrate on what had the most demand. Sometimes you need those subsidies to bring about new business areasMon, 05 Oct 2009 08:29:04 GMTSteve Jones - SSC EditorRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Jeff Moden (10/3/2009)[/b][hr]Heh... it doesn't matter if anything is bundled or not... you're still going to pay too much. :-D[/quote]Preach it, brother!Mon, 05 Oct 2009 06:31:09 GMTjcrawf02RE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspxHeh... it doesn't matter if anything is bundled or not... you're still going to pay too much. :-DSat, 03 Oct 2009 21:32:13 GMTJeff ModenRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspxI believe most of the opinions against bundling, and the 'free-choice' perspective might have their sustained reasons. However, bundling allows a small member of a business model to take a proportional part of it. In the case of Golf Channel, it couldn't be possible for them to compete with ESPN nor FOX Sport, in example. Nevertheless, they have the part of the "pie" that they are entitled to; and of course, its TV technicians, IT technicians, journalists, and reporters, grow up everyday as professionals, and feed their families thanks to that.Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:29:55 GMTWellington AquinoRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Ronald Bruintjes (8/17/2009)[/b]Have you noticed the new trend, where on one and the same channel there is bundling? Take for example SyFy channel (named that way because English was unbundled in the educational package? Not sure...), which now not only hosts various gradations of Science Fiction and Fantasy series and movies, but also features Wrestling. How can I unbundle that...? ;-)[/quote]Funny, but I happen to agree with their categorization of Wrestling into Fantasy.....;-)Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:11:19 GMTjcrawf02RE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Ronald Bruintjes (8/17/2009)[/b][hr][quote][b]jcrawf02 (8/13/2009)[/b][hr][quote][b]matt stockham (8/13/2009)[/b][hr][quote][b]jpowers (8/12/2009)[/b][hr]Personally, I would prefer to pay only for the channels I watch. I see no reason why they can't allow us to pay just for our preferred entertainment.[/quote]I'm sure everyone would like to reduce their costs by excluding the channels they never watch. The flip side is that some of those channels that you [i]do[/i] want to watch might not exist any more, or they might charge more to receive than you have saved by not bundling. It all depends on whether you like the mainstream channels or something a little more obscure.[/quote]But at least you'd be paying for value that you wanted, rather than fluff you did not, to the possible exclusion of what you do want.[/quote]Not necessarily...Have you noticed the new trend, where on one and the same channel there is bundling? Take for example SyFy channel (named that way because English was unbundled in the educational package? Not sure...), which now not only hosts various gradations of Science Fiction and Fantasy series and movies, but also features Wrestling. How can I unbundle that...? ;-)[/quote]I feel old when I type that I can remember when MTV was a medium for watching music videos....I consol myself on that point when I realize that I'm not old enough to remember when TV news was about information, instead of about marketing and political indoctrination.Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:31:31 GMTGSquaredRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspx[quote][b]jcrawf02 (8/13/2009)[/b][hr][quote][b]matt stockham (8/13/2009)[/b][hr][quote][b]jpowers (8/12/2009)[/b][hr]Personally, I would prefer to pay only for the channels I watch. I see no reason why they can't allow us to pay just for our preferred entertainment.[/quote]I'm sure everyone would like to reduce their costs by excluding the channels they never watch. The flip side is that some of those channels that you [i]do[/i] want to watch might not exist any more, or they might charge more to receive than you have saved by not bundling. It all depends on whether you like the mainstream channels or something a little more obscure.[/quote]But at least you'd be paying for value that you wanted, rather than fluff you did not, to the possible exclusion of what you do want.[/quote]Not necessarily...Have you noticed the new trend, where on one and the same channel there is bundling? Take for example SyFy channel (named that way because English was unbundled in the educational package? Not sure...), which now not only hosts various gradations of Science Fiction and Fantasy series and movies, but also features Wrestling. How can I unbundle that...? ;-)Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:13:59 GMTRonald BruintjesRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspxAnd there's the rub, we don't get to negotiate things, or get more choice. We also get what is negotiated, which definitely isn't always a good thing for consumers.Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:25:29 GMTSteve Jones - SSC EditorRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspx[quote][b]matt stockham (8/13/2009)[/b][hr][quote][b]jpowers (8/12/2009)[/b][hr]Personally, I would prefer to pay only for the channels I watch. I see no reason why they can't allow us to pay just for our preferred entertainment.[/quote]I'm sure everyone would like to reduce their costs by excluding the channels they never watch. The flip side is that some of those channels that you [i]do[/i] want to watch might not exist any more, or they might charge more to receive than you have saved by not bundling. It all depends on whether you like the mainstream channels or something a little more obscure.[/quote]You mean more than what I'm paying now for a bundle? In any case, let the market and tastes decide the fate of those individual channels. Right now, we get only those bundles where the cable companies have negotiated favorably. It's not based on demand. Last year, in my area, we had trouble getting pay-per-view NFL because of contract disputes between NFL and cable company though the demand was extremely high. Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:02:58 GMTsjsubscribeRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspx[quote][b]matt stockham (8/13/2009)[/b][hr][quote][b]jpowers (8/12/2009)[/b][hr]Personally, I would prefer to pay only for the channels I watch. I see no reason why they can't allow us to pay just for our preferred entertainment.[/quote]I'm sure everyone would like to reduce their costs by excluding the channels they never watch. The flip side is that some of those channels that you [i]do[/i] want to watch might not exist any more, or they might charge more to receive than you have saved by not bundling. It all depends on whether you like the mainstream channels or something a little more obscure.[/quote]But at least you'd be paying for value that you wanted, rather than fluff you did not, to the possible exclusion of what you do want.Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:59:11 GMTjcrawf02RE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspx[quote][b]matt stockham (8/13/2009)[/b][hr][quote][b]jpowers (8/12/2009)[/b][hr]Personally, I would prefer to pay only for the channels I watch. I see no reason why they can't allow us to pay just for our preferred entertainment.[/quote]I'm sure everyone would like to reduce their costs by excluding the channels they never watch. The flip side is that some of those channels that you [i]do[/i] want to watch might not exist any more, or they might charge more to receive than you have saved by not bundling. It all depends on whether you like the mainstream channels or something a little more obscure.[/quote]The other side of the coin is that it may actually be cheaper for the cable/satellite companies to get the extra channels many people may not watch than to not get them from the various content providers. Bundling may be more cost effective for them as well.Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:58:48 GMTLynn PettisRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspx[quote][b]jpowers (8/12/2009)[/b][hr]Personally, I would prefer to pay only for the channels I watch. I see no reason why they can't allow us to pay just for our preferred entertainment.[/quote]I'm sure everyone would like to reduce their costs by excluding the channels they never watch. The flip side is that some of those channels that you [i]do[/i] want to watch might not exist any more, or they might charge more to receive than you have saved by not bundling. It all depends on whether you like the mainstream channels or something a little more obscure.Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:47:17 GMTmatt stockhamRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Steve Jones - Editor (8/12/2009)[/b][hr]Should you just get a degree in computers and ignore English, math, etc. if that's what you want? I'd argue that a well rounded education, high school and college, makes the world a better place. If we allowed the un-bundling of many requirements from degrees, I think we'd be worse off overall for it. And maybe worse off individually.[/quote]I think it's a bad example. As you say, it's a well rounded bundle, where each part completes the other. There is no such completion between the food channel and the golf channel or between different songs in most albums. If the IT guys are playing solitaire all day long and just pressing a few keys now and then to create backups, then we really don't need them.There is nothing wrong with bundeling, as long it is in the best interest of the end user (or the consumer), even if he doesn't really wants it at first. I see no such thing with the bundeling of different nische channels (or IT departments). If the golf channel can't stand on its own, than it shouldn't exists, and all the people who used to watch it will continue their lives just as they did before the channel was on the air. Same rule applies on IT departments. The difference is not in the question "Can the IT department stands on it's own", because you don't measure it that way. The question is "What is the loss to the organization if there is no in-house IT department".Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:25:10 GMTDoron HadarRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspxWhile the album size can change (and has, gotten longer with CDs), it also has the economies from getting the band into the studio and working through a series of songs. That takes some time to get going, and it's not easy to start and stop the process.But I agree with you in principle, the old format should be re-examined and built in a better way moving forward. Not just trying to cling to the idea that we have 12 songs on a CD.Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:51:40 GMTSteve Jones - SSC EditorRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspx[quote][b]stevejunk (8/12/2009)[/b][hr]the whole single song .vs. album is interesting. What would happen to albums like "the wall"? would 90% of the world download "comfortably numb" and ignore the rest missing out in the story the album tells? I've bought albums where I've been burned and only got on decent track that I liked. I've also bought albums for one song and loved every single song. depends on the artist, depends on the album. I've never ran across an artist where I've like every single song they've put out. if you want bundling check out this [url=http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/Drilldown?name_id1=5170&name_role1=1&bcorder=1&comp_id=312507]Haydn box set[/url]On the TV front, the cost .vs. what I get for that cost weighs to heavily on the "I'm not paying for that crap" side of the equation. Hence, we use rabbit ears and i watch almost zero broadcast TV. I watch some sat morning cartoons with my kids but that's it.[/quote]The album format itself is an outgrowth of marketing those older formats. There's no reason why albums can't be longer or shorter or even a single song. In fact, we can make the case that the album format has affected creativity, packaging, number of songs the artists produce, etc. It certainly affected the economics of that "business model". But with iTunes, all these are open to exploration and maybe we might see a new model that can serve both the economic and the artistic aspects.Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:36:30 GMTsjsubscribeRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Steve Jones - Editor (8/12/2009)[/b][hr][quote][b]Ronald Bruintjes (8/12/2009)[/b][hr]Will that not take care of itself? The first time a company like that has a disk crash, and there are no backups, that will be the last time that happens: they'll learn and make sure there are adequate backups, or they're out of business.[/quote]I don't think so. A department or person will be scapegoated, yelled at, something. They might buy a system, but this is a lesson that will have to be learned over and over and over.It's easy to say that the company suffers, but often they don't. Individuals suffer, often those not with power.[/quote]That's why I always felt more comfortable working in orgs with a previous disaster experience behind them. Yes, it's not pretty being there when it happens for the first time.Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:27:27 GMTsjsubscribeRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspxthe whole single song .vs. album is interesting. What would happen to albums like "the wall"? would 90% of the world download "comfortably numb" and ignore the rest missing out in the story the album tells? I've bought albums where I've been burned and only got on decent track that I liked. I've also bought albums for one song and loved every single song. depends on the artist, depends on the album. I've never ran across an artist where I've like every single song they've put out. if you want bundling check out this [url=http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/Drilldown?name_id1=5170&name_role1=1&bcorder=1&comp_id=312507]Haydn box set[/url]On the TV front, the cost .vs. what I get for that cost weighs to heavily on the "I'm not paying for that crap" side of the equation. Hence, we use rabbit ears and i watch almost zero broadcast TV. I watch some sat morning cartoons with my kids but that's it.Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:16:40 GMTSteven.HowesRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspxIn media, there is a fine line with bundling. Sometimes it does get silly, like the music people wanting to maintain margins and not realizing the world is changing. Or television being held hostage by ESPN and forced to raise rates. Actually they aren't forced. ESPN wants to increase revenue, so they raise rates. Companies decide how much to lower their margins, and how much to hit the consumer.It's easy to say that I should only pay for what I want. And in some cases I agree, some I don't. News/media, etc. are one of those places where a variety enriches us. Television is such a luxury, that it's a bad example, but think education.Should you just get a degree in computers and ignore English, math, etc. if that's what you want? I'd argue that a well rounded education, high school and college, makes the world a better place. If we allowed the un-bundling of many requirements from degrees, I think we'd be worse off overall for it. And maybe worse off individually.It's also data that I see out there. Often it's not that hard to capture a little more data on things, or keep items like weblogs, which can be used latter. But if we allowed everyone to just slice out what they wanted, we might never have those things.As with most things, the decision to bundle, "depends". It's a circumstances and judgment call as to when to do it. And like most things, I'm not sure I, or anyone, gets it right most of the time.Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:42:17 GMTSteve Jones - SSC EditorRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Ronald Bruintjes (8/12/2009)[/b][hr]Will that not take care of itself? The first time a company like that has a disk crash, and there are no backups, that will be the last time that happens: they'll learn and make sure there are adequate backups, or they're out of business.[/quote]I don't think so. A department or person will be scapegoated, yelled at, something. They might buy a system, but this is a lesson that will have to be learned over and over and over.It's easy to say that the company suffers, but often they don't. Individuals suffer, often those not with power.Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:36:03 GMTSteve Jones - SSC EditorRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspxI think the bundling problem is forced bundling, at least you can uncheck the option for a Google toolbar. But when the provider says ok you want ESPN, well it WILL BE on your basic package or you can't have it, and no you can't treat it like a pay station, instead of you pay us $X per subscriber and you decide where to put it in your lineup. I keep beating up on ESPN because they are such an easy target, your cable rates keep going up because of channels costing more, but that cable company is ALWAYS the bad guy, it doesn't matter to John and Jane Doe that the providers forced the cable company to add those 10 channels that you have never watched (and probably never will), and now you get to pay more for the priviledge.. Because the cable companies aren't going to eat those costs at least not for long.. I don't have a problem with the cable companies bundling, but when they are forced to is where it becomes a problem.CEWIIWed, 12 Aug 2009 13:19:11 GMTElliott WhitlowRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspxI agree that the music industry’s “problem” is mostly of their own making. Having to get an entire album just for one good song might be profit for the industry, but sucks for the end-user and ultimately is horrible for the artist. I can understand (but not support) someone resorting to piracy to get the one good song on a $15 to $25 album.Recently I had to re-build my Windows machine (video card blew up and the OS got corrupted slightly). After installing a new video card and reinstalling the OS, I went about installing other downloaded programs (Adobe Reader, etc.) and most of them wanted to install the Google Search bar as well.Not wanting Google Search, I unchecked the option. After the third or fourth time of having to uncheck this, I was getting rather miffed about the bundling. But the option was there not accept the bundle (though I was pleasantly surprised to find one program where the option to install Google Search wasn’t checked by default).Having the choice to download one song, two songs or the entire album for a discounted price is an improvement on the original model. The music company still gets paid for the expense of recording the artist, the artist gets paid for what’s valuable, the user is happier and the artist gets pushed for more quality work which in turn makes the user happier and therefore more cash from more sales and less piracy to get the one good song from a lousy album.I can see where the cable TV industry might do well to adopt a similar model. Offer the option of getting the channels separately, but also offer a bundle of X number of channels that is cheaper than getting Y number separately (with Y being less than X).Bundling, if done well, with various options, can be a value-added thing to a product. Which brings us to the problem, what’s being bundled needs to have some value. Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:34:00 GMTKit GRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspxI can see the benefits of music downloading services. I can even see the reason for iTunes including album art with their album downloads. That content can be nice to have. I don't use music downloading services very often anymore though. The quality, even the high-quality downloads, is fairly low. I still buy CDs on occasion, but even that is waning. My music medium of choice is vinyl now. I was born in 1984, so I didn't really have much exposure to vinyl and feel kind of cheated for it now. My personal opinion is that vinyl sounds much better. The only problem with vinyl is that the band/artist has to be able to put together a full album. Check out Jack White's (The White Stripes, The Raconteurs, The Dead Weather) <a href="http://www.thirdmanrecords.com/">Third Man Records</a>. They're pushing vinyl harder than anybody else right now. I'm hoping more musicians decide to revert to vinyl as well. Plus, wandering around a cool record shop beats browsing iTunes any day.The medium quality isn't a problem for television (theoretically). A la carte channel selection would be nice for cable/satellite. I can see some downsides to it though. Some good shows may get canceled because they are on strange or marginal channels. Is it good for television overall if groundbreaking shows never make it because a la carte programming makes the networks that they are on disappear? I don't know. I know that I have stumbled across really good television shows on channels that I never thought I would want. A great example of this is "Rescue Me." I don't particularly like FX. Before I started watching "Rescue Me," I would never have picked FX if a la carte service were available. I watched an episode of "Rescue Me" about a year ago and got hooked though. Now I own the first four seasons on DVD and have watched every episode this season. It's a solid example of cable bundling working in my benefit. Anyway, just my thoughts.- Gavin JohnsonWed, 12 Aug 2009 12:10:12 GMTgjohnson-677409RE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Steve Jones - Editor (8/12/2009)[/b][hr]It IT, how many companies might forgo a backup system if they had to pay piece by piece for services? Who wants to fund the tape guy? No one does, and as many companies have done, they'll gamble on not having issues. However that cost needs to be sunk and absorbed.Security? To a large extent if departments or groups could pick and choose, they'd ignore this, expecting someone else to handle it, or, just stick more servers under desks and not spend the funding. I've seen it time and time again.[/quote]Will that not take care of itself? The first time a company like that has a disk crash, and there are no backups, that will be the last time that happens: they'll learn and make sure there are adequate backups, or they're out of business.Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:47:56 GMTRonald BruintjesRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspxPersonally, I would prefer to pay only for the channels I watch. I see no reason why they can't allow us to pay just for our preferred entertainment.Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:24:49 GMTnotquitexenaRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspxSteve, wonder if you noticed the connection between the networking blog item (which is right above) the slicing and dicing editorial in the email. I think both are speaking to similar needs though one's more personal than the other. Just as we as individuals have to expand and connect and build these links, companies must also do the same both internally and externally. But for the music industry, it's at a critical stage, where companies would be forced to change whereas other industries may have already gone over that phase and may not feel the same pressure.Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:21:07 GMTsjsubscribeRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspx[quote][b]jcrawf02 (8/12/2009)[/b][hr]...I think I kind of see his point that being part of a bundle would allow a fledgling channel to develop interesting programming without having to get it from the start.However, if it's only in existence because it's leeching from channels that people actually watch, and nobody is watching the little guy, then why should it still be on the air? It's easier on the cable company program director because he gets some cushion, but not the end user.[/quote]I'd say that's exactly the problem though. It's this idea that somehow, something that can't get it together at the start will be able to get it together later "if only we just give it a little more money". Pain (or the avoidance thereof) being the primary motivator of human beings dictates that if we know we can create something that is crap, and just leech off of something else that is successful creates zero motivation to improve it and make it marketable. Cutting off its funding now, versus later, only insists that the product (whatever it may be) be able to stand on its own to start with. This, of course, does not necessarily count towards initial development costs, in which some one or some thing must put up the initial capital to create the product. However, once the product is created, it either can be a success or it can not.The market dictates that there is either demand for something at a certain pricepoint, or there isn't. Trying to muck with the pricepoint by throwing unearned money at something, say, by taking that money from another successful product or entity, isn't the way to "create choice" or "make the leeching product better", it simply is a way to pay off someone or ensure that the rewards of success are taken from those who earn them and given to those that do not.Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:15:01 GMTGarry MorrisRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspxI don't know that Steve is saying wanting to spend your money how you want is wrong, I think I kind of see his point that being part of a bundle would allow a fledgling channel to develop interesting programming without having to get it from the start. However, if it's only in existence because it's leeching from channels that people actually watch, and nobody is watching the little guy, then why should it still be on the air? It's easier on the cable company program director because he gets some cushion, but not the end user.Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:16:13 GMTjcrawf02RE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspx"...it helps to counter the natural instincts that so many people have to minimize their expenditures for their own benefits".Hi SteveNormally I find your comments right on target, but not today <smile>.You seem to be indicating that people should NOT do what they feel is in their own best interest, that their wanting to spend their monies how they want is wrong?I don't want others forcing me to spend my money on what I don't want, I bet if you rethink this that you feel that way too?Keep up the interesting writing.MikeWed, 12 Aug 2009 09:41:48 GMTMike in MichiganRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspx[quote][b]ChrisMoix (8/12/2009)[/b][hr]blandry said:[quote]Last time we hired a DBA I was stunned at how many applicants had good SQL skills, but Zero .NET, Zero CLR skills. I know, I know, some find this "okay" - I do not. I think its silly to try to be a DBA without these base skills.[/quote] This topic has come up before. It seems like you are talking about a database developer (or a hybrid administrator/developer). I have taken 3 university classes in .Net (about 4 years ago) and I have never used them. Larger companies tend to seperate job roles more, and i think calling everone who works on a database a DBA is misleading. It is like lumping application server admins in with developers. Some companies like to mix the skill sets up, some do not.[/quote]Consider also, not every shop is going to use CLR in their databases. If someone comes from a such a shop, they won't necessarily have those skills or knowledge. Doesn't mean they can't learn it.Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:12:40 GMTLynn PettisRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspxblandry said:[quote]Last time we hired a DBA I was stunned at how many applicants had good SQL skills, but Zero .NET, Zero CLR skills. I know, I know, some find this "okay" - I do not. I think its silly to try to be a DBA without these base skills.[/quote] This topic has come up before. It seems like you are talking about a database developer (or a hybrid administrator/developer). I have taken 3 university classes in .Net (about 4 years ago) and I have never used them. Larger companies tend to seperate job roles more, and i think calling everone who works on a database a DBA is misleading. It is like lumping application server admins in with developers. Some companies like to mix the skill sets up, some do not.Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:03:58 GMTChrisMoix-87856RE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Rick Todd (8/12/2009)[/b][hr]Hey Steve, you should get your son a Zune Pass for a couple of months and see what he thinks. Basically it's all-you-can-eat music for as long as you're subscribed. You can download whatever you want and listen to it on up to 3 computers, and (I think) 2 Zunes. Since the music is DRMed it has to be played through the Zune software or through a Zune device.[/quote]I thought about that, and might try it. He doesn't buy a lot of music (yet), so buying a few MP3s from amazon and iTunes and sharing them with him has worked well so far.Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:12:59 GMTSteve Jones - SSC EditorRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspxI think I have to add that this isn't really about the 'music experience'. This is about the music cartels no longer being able to keep a CD priced at $15 (one of the few things that has YET to see a price drop despite the fact the cost to create it has dropped like a rock) - so, yes, it certainly does affect the money. The question is, of course, is this a bad thing? We aren't talking about thin margins here - the cost to produce a CD is fairly quickly recovered and it becomes a very high profit item very quickly. The entire music business model is skewed - the top 5 bands make 90% of the money (my exagerated numbers - but it's something along those lines) - I fail to see why we should want to see that model revived. Personally, I see the new attempt at re-forging to the digital album as simply a way to get back to gouging people. That said, I'm all for choice - as long as we continue to be able to buy seperate tracks (and we will, because the moment that stops, welcome back to the days of napster. That genie is way out of the bottle) I'm fine with whatever other buying options they want to offer. The one great thing about all of this is they are fully aware there is price tipping point. They jump tracks up to $3, people will simply go back to pirating. I always said the moment you can easily get a track for $1, most people won't bother to pirate. I'd rather hop on amazon, find it, preview it and zap it to my MP3 folder for .99. The irony here is that the music companies create the monster they are now dealing with. They stuck their heads in the sand as the digital age grew bigger and bigger. They clung to their $15 albums for as long as they could - but in doing so, they released the MP3 onto the world. People knew there was a better, cheaper solution and they went looking. Had they bother to keep up and move with the times, they could have actually kept some control. Now it's too late. Can't say I agree much with the idea that the 1 or 2 tracks on an album are some how made better by the other 8-10 crap tracks on it - but again, whatever floats your boat. Choice is a good thing.Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:01:26 GMTnhustakRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspxI used to think that I'd only want to pay for what I need, but I'm not sure that promotes variety.You say that bundling is bad, but I disagree. I think it helps us build more well rounded environments. TV is an example of that. I'd never buy some channels, but I have occasionally found things on other channels, or others in my family had. If bundling didn't exist, likely many channels like the various Discovery ones, would never come into existence. No one would pay the incremental fee, or want to. This has been seen in other places where small micro payments for an additional service don't generate enough revenue.Even if you think there is too much crap on TV, lots of that stuff does appeal to small groups often, and large groups at times.It IT, how many companies might forgo a backup system if they had to pay piece by piece for services? Who wants to fund the tape guy? No one does, and as many companies have done, they'll gamble on not having issues. However that cost needs to be sunk and absorbed.Security? To a large extent if departments or groups could pick and choose, they'd ignore this, expecting someone else to handle it, or, just stick more servers under desks and not spend the funding. I've seen it time and time again.Bundling does have value, and it helps to counter the natural instincts that so many people have to minimize their expenditures for their own benefits.Wed, 12 Aug 2009 07:58:12 GMTSteve Jones - SSC EditorRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspx[quote]Think of television. If the Golf channel had to be purchased separately, it might not exist. But by bundling the Food channel, the Golf channel and a few more in with other selections, they can all get a slice of the revenue and find ways to survive.[/quote]I have to take HUGE exception to this. There are 6-7 companies that control 99% of ALL cable/dish channels. Their negotiations with the cable companies is less like a negotiation and more like a dictation of terms. Things like ESPN SHALL BE in basic cable. Something like 40% of the people want ESPN and it IS the single most expensive channel the providers carry, even over the movie channels. But when the folks who own ESPN can order them to put it in basic service and not treat it as a pay channel then the other 60% of us have to subsidize it and cable/dish rates go up so ESPN can pay more and we can pay our players even more.. Also, if you want say Syfy channel you will take this new woodworking channel, no choices.. Cable companies claim ala carte will kill some channels and prevent most from being created, that may or may not be true, but how about we stop the abuses of the channel owners who can basically tell the operators what they WILL do. This is the real problem and ala carte probably isn't the best way to solve it..Note: I do not work for the cable or dish companies, nor have I ever. My wife worked for a cable company for about 5 years taking calls from people irritated about cable rates and such, my information is based on her experiences and knowledge of the workings of the cable industry.CEWIIWed, 12 Aug 2009 07:57:03 GMTElliott WhitlowRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspxVladimir Lenin, the father of modern communism said; "If you want the people to crave white bread, you feed them nothing but white bread." This was (though maybe not the progenitor) the first instance of the value of dumbing-down the people to control them.Now, take a look at television and music. We have WAY too many channels and portals. This means we need content, which also means we have to lower our standards as to acceptable content. This means the more we advance with technology, in fact, the "stupider" we become. If you don't think this is happening, turn on your TV. You are now receiving four times as many commercials as was the case in the 60's-70's, and every one of them is selling you stuff you don't need, let alone want in most cases. And yet people will tolerate those idiotic interrupters so they don't miss what? "American Idol". Maybe "Dancing with the Stars"... Truly historic shows and information that will undoubtedly change the course of mankind, right? NOT!!!Think about that - here we have this amazing invention that COULD be used to educate our populous, but what do we do with it? We dumb them down. Oh, no worries, after all, its "just entertainment". Really? A survey a few years ago found that 95% of American teenagers could name all the members of the band N'Sync - but in the same group, only 5% could locate Iraq on a world map, and 1% knew the capitals of their neighboring states. Just harmless entertainment? This is shocking to my generation where during the Vietnam war, just about every night we would hear from reporters from the battlefield. We would see body bags coming home. This outraged Americans, motivated them and helped put an end to that horrible war. Now, think about Iraq... We have been there longer than we were in Europe for World War II, and still, we hear barely a peep from any battlefield and are forbidden to see body bags. And how often do today's Americans have any concern about that war? Barely at all. Whether you think that war is right or wrong, you cannot deny that we are as uninformed about it as any war in our history - and THIS, right when we have this amazing technology far beyond any ever known.This dynamic also has a parallel in IT... Last time we hired a DBA I was stunned at how many applicants had good SQL skills, but Zero .NET, Zero CLR skills. I know, I know, some find this "okay" - I do not. I think its silly to try to be a DBA without these base skills. What good is anyone to me if all they do is SQL Server? Sure, thats 50-60% of the work, but there is much more I need! Still, I am told by colleagues that some companies hire DBAs without these skills. My guess is there is a lot of mindless web-surfing going on in those companies. Again, is this us "getting smarter"? Seems the opposite to me.We need to listen carefully to Lenin's words - its a stark warning for Technologists of all kinds. Its not enough to just invent the next gizmo if you have not thought about content, and the danger of mindless content, whether that's today's digital wasteland of television, or working in a IT department where all you do is "white bread".As a society we are not increasing our knowledge with technology - we are actually decreasing knowledge, standards, and acceptable baselines. By the time robots, cyborgs and androids are around to do most of the work for us, we will have lost all the knowledge it took centuries to build and absorb. All for the sake of silly shows, whose sole purpose is to promote commercials so you will buy stuff you don't need.Amazing that some of the most amazing inventions in our time, are actually making us more stupid. Thats progress... Backwards.Wed, 12 Aug 2009 07:56:34 GMTblandryRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspxHey Steve, you should get your son a Zune Pass for a couple of months and see what he thinks. Basically it's all-you-can-eat music for as long as you're subscribed. You can download whatever you want and listen to it on up to 3 computers, and (I think) 2 Zunes. Since the music is DRMed it has to be played through the Zune software or through a Zune device.It has completely changed the way I listen to music. I start with albums I like, then do the "mixview" through the software which shows me who influenced the artist, who the artist influenced, and related albums. Since it's all-you-can-eat, you can just click on one of the other albums and listen to the whole thing.They've also licensed the AMG/AllMusic.com content, so you can read album reviews and artist bios right from the software.Oh, and you can download anything that's available from the Zune Pass for free straight from the Zune via WiFi.I sound like I work for MS, which I don't, but I just love the service and think it's not getting the publicity it deserves.They'll even let you keep 10 songs a month now as part of the $15 a month service fee. What's not to like?Wed, 12 Aug 2009 07:48:09 GMTRick ToddRE: Slicing and Dicinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic769069-263-1.aspxHave to agree with Ronald on this one. The bundling of channels is what is [b]wrong[/b] with television, not right. I would pay big bucks if I could truly get a la carte choice in my channels. (I would still buy both Golf and Food channels, by the way) Even better if major events like elections/Olympics/etc had camera choices I could subscribe to, so that I could watch all of the whitewater kayak but none of the, I don't know, rythmic gymnastics. The current model of music distribution is allowing artists who were never able to get an entire album put together or contracts with major players to get their music out there. This is a good thing. Selling one song at a time may make it harder to produce the concept of an album story, but I think the benefits outweigh any detriment.Wed, 12 Aug 2009 07:24:39 GMTjcrawf02